Common Sense in Faith-Based Hiring

One of the most effective arguments I've heard for the Bush administration's effort to protect the right of faith-based organizations to hire the staff they believe shares their worldview comes from Phil De Vous, the policy manager for The Acton Institute.

De Vous made the point that it would be unthinkable for the Democrats' presidential nominee to hire someone like The Leadership Institute's Morton Blackwell to run their 2004 get-out-the-vote effort because their acceptance of FEC funds in the general election should prevent non-discrimination in hiring.

My friend Morton, who happens to be the Republican National Committeeman from Virginia, as a heterosexual, white, older Christian and conservative male could bring forth a lawsuit alleging discrimination.

Well, let me tell you, Donna Brazile and all the other Democrat political consultants can breathe easier. Morton is not looking to sign up with Dick Gephardt, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton or any other Democrat. The one thing that both Morton and Democrats can agree on is that he should not be placed on the party payroll, and that they shouldn't wind up on the Bush re-election campaign's must-hire list.

Unfortunately, laws are not so clear-cut when it comes to religious groups hiring the staff that they think best fits their organization's mission and viewpoint, particularly when it is a faith-based group.

When the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, its Title VII provision prevented discrimination in hiring based on religion, sex, color, race and national origin but it included a special exemption for religious and faith-based organizations. Eight years later, the exemption's scope was expanded to encompass any and all positions within faith-based organizations, not just those pertaining to the ministry.

In upholding this law, Justice Brennan wrote in 1987 that "[d]etermining that certain activities are in furtherance of an organization's religious mission, and that only those committed to that mission should conduct them, is ... a means by which a religious community defines itself."

However, other laws passed by the Congress have been contradictory, particularly when Federal funds are involved. The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives maintains there are "at least five different – and often conflicting – approaches that Congress has applied to religious organizations that receive a Federal grant." The approaches include Charitable Choice provisions which guarantee an organization's Title VII exemption in administering social service programs to those with no special civil rights rules regulating hiring by religious organizations.

But in the cases of Head Start and Community Development Block Grants, there is a guarantee of non-discrimination in obtaining benefits or exclusion from participation but no specific mention of employment. Past Supreme Court rulings suggest that their statues may be applied to employment decisions too.

Then there are the specific programs such as the Omnibus Crime and Control & Safe Streets Act that make specific mention of employment. And there are those programs in which Congress has taken away the Title VII religious hiring exemption. In the latter case, it is a blatant attempt by Congress to deny faith-based groups their religious hiring rights.

Furthermore, many state laws prohibit discrimination based on religion and, quite often, sexual orientation. Not all of these laws would exempt religious organizations that receive government funds. As the Bush administration's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives points out, the "hodgepodge" of approaches poses a regulatory burden on faith-based groups and deters them oftentimes from trying to obtain federal funds.

Some conservative groups do this simply because they believe in principle that there should not be a tie between government and the private sector, a very admirable position, but one that is not universal within the faith-based community. For those groups wishing to participate but finding themselves deterred by the contradictory approach in hiring, the president has come to their aid.

President Bush has already worked very hard the last few years to draw attention to the important and effective work that faith-based organizations do. More than that, he issued Executive Order 11246 on Dec. 12, 2002, that would guarantee the right of faith-based organizations receiving federal contracts to make the staffing decisions that they feel best suit their organization's mission.

Right now, the administration is working to make sure that the laws are changed to ensure that faith-based organizations have the right to take religious considerations into account when making hiring decisions. Government, the president has said, is not to endorse any religious creed or directly fund worship or teaching.

Yet government should support those religious groups that provide social services, making sure that the services are provided to anyone who needs it and that the charities and faith-based programs themselves are not forced to jettison their religious bearings and mission.

However, for every positive action taken in Washington there is almost certainly a negative counteraction, and that is obviously the case when it comes to the president's decision to protect religious hiring rights. People for the American Way (PFAW)is dead-set against the preservation of religious hiring rights and is supporting obstructionist efforts at the state and national level to pass legislation in the same vein of the president's executive order.

When the Senate passed the CARE Act of 2003, it excluded a charitable-choice provision, something that PFAW's Ralph Neas claimed would "weaken the barrier between church and state" and could lead to government funding of "religious proselytizing."

Claims like that are perpetually sounded by PFAW and its like-minded followers, but they have a distinctly hollow ring. Not only have President Bush and his administration made clear that no federal funds are to be used to support expressly religious activities, but also participation in religious activities is not supposed to be a condition for receiving services.

Furthermore, America's Founding Fathers were expressly concerned about the establishment of a state religion in America. However, America's pluralistic tradition is clearly in evidence by the wide variety of faith-based organizations representing all major denominations that receive federal funds.

What PFAW and like-minded groups want to do is strip away the very important elements – the shared faith and camaraderie – that ensure extra meaning to the work of groups whether they are a local storefront tutoring service run by a local Protestant church or even a larger social service provider like Catholic Charities. They would like any and all faith-based organizations to reflect the same viewpoint and mentality of a state bureaucracy – soulless, impersonal and rule-bound.

Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, has been a vocal critic of President Bush's efforts to guarantee religious hiring rights. He recently offered an amendment in the Appropriations Committee to deny federal funding to organizations that receive money from the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill and that exercise their religious hiring rights. It said "none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act, may be used to provide financial assistance to any program, project, or activity that discriminates in job hiring based on religion when using federal funds."

While that attempt was voted down, it is thought likely among House Republicans that Edwards or a like-minded colleague, perhaps Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., will attempt to offer a similar amendment on the floor when the full House considers the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill. That could come as soon as July 10.

Conservatives of conscience and compassion need to make clear to Rep. Edwards and organizations such as People for the American Way that we will go to the mat to ensure that religious organizations will be able to maintain their essential character by exercising their religious hiring rights. Otherwise, the groups run the significant risk of just becoming social service bureaucracies with the special ingredient – the true believers in their missions – absent because of conflicting or adverse government regulations.

Fortunately, as President Bush has made clear, there is a better way and he wants to make sure it's taken.